The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-01-17
THE MORMON BILL.
The Right of Congress to Govern the
Territories.
Speech of the Hon. Thomas 3
Reed.

JNeSN AOWH. III WOulQ SEEM NOW as
II there ought to be some exposition Of the
principles which govern this bill | have
alSo personal reason for desiring to state
why support the bill. am a believer in
iSian ioJal sen government. am also thorough
Deiiever In government by the people and |
LOOK upon many of the tendencies
Iy nope-of modern times with great dis
trust; Tor instance, the tendency to take
from tne people OF this country their power
OF frequent examination into the acts OF their
ofi1clals. believe that biennial elections
ana quadrennial goyernorships are inven-
tlons which deprive the people of power.
anu az the same time offer prizes to be cap
tured by the corruption of political life.
Delleye also that, under ordinary circum-
stances, the best government of which a
people IS capable is the government which
tney establish for themselves. With all its
imperiectlous, with all its shortcomings, it
| Is always better adapted to them than any
Other government, even though invented by
wiser men. Believing in these principles, i
tnink 1T desirable to explain why | consider
TINS case an entire and complete exception
| 70 the general rule which ought to control
the government of a free people by them
selves. Gentlemen who have discussed this
| question upon the other side have done so
always under the implied assumption that
tne territory OF the United States occupies
| the same relation to the United States as the
territory Of State. There can be no greater
tallacy than that, yet that fallacy underlies
the whole of the able argument which was
read oy the Delegate from Utah. That argu-
ment proceeds sub silentio upon the idea
that the Territory which is organized under
the name OF Utah bears the same relation to
| TINS people and this government that State
| would, or that Utah itself would after it had
been admitted to the full fellowship of the
| States
The right of self-government is right
| which exists in a State, which belongs to
| the inhabitants of the State, and which the
Constitution declares Congress shall guaran-
zee 70 tne state. But the territory owned by
the United States occupies an entirely differ
| ent relation. Why, here in this District, be-
| lore our very eyes, has been established,
amid the acclamations of gentlemen on the
| other slde government which does not al
low the residents OF city Of 100000 inhabi-
tants the least power or control over the af-
iairs OF the land they inhabit. 1t allows
| them neither control over their own local af-
fairs nor participation, as citizens of the
United States, In the common affairs of the
| country. This arises from the peculiar situ-
alton Of the territory which is occupied by
the seat Of government.
| 1t was deemed desirable, and wisely so
| deemed, that the government of the United
States should Of itself, apart from any con-
| troll of any one of the States, and outside
| the boundaries Of any of them, own and con-
troll territory necessary for the seat of gov
ernment. We have here territory which be-
longs to the United States; and we have the
seeming anomaly Of the capital of the coun-
Is governed without the will or consent of
those actually residing here. Yet this is JUS
tihable. 1t Is justifable ON the ground Of the
situation. We pay half the expenses; we
have the right to CONTROL and all the people
Of the United States are interested; there
lore we assume and exercise control
NOW, what is the position of a territory of
the United States? 1t is land owned by the
United States outside of the territory of the
States themselves. Even when the fee-simple
mas passed 1t is our domain. Wemay have
design in the future to make of this land
States, to be admitted into the Union with
the full powers OF the existing States But
IN the mean time Congress has the right To
make rules and regulations for the territory:
ana IL thle were an untouched question it
might well be doubted whether Congress had
any right to delegate this power, whether
we are not bound ourselves to make the
rules and regulations. But the legislative
decision has been otherwise, and Congress
has allowed TO Il e inhabitants of the organ
lied territories the exercise of certain politi-
cal privileges. These have been accorded to
the temporary residents there, not as rights
but as privileges extended by the hand of
Congress.
Whatever limitation, therefore, Congress
sees mt to put upon the power which it grants
tnose that lnhablt the lands belonging to the
United States is solely within the control of
the people Of the United States. They can
limit this power, can make it greater or less,
or can annihilate it entirely, and govern
these Territories by commissioners, just as
we govern the territory occupied now Dy the
Federal capital. And am not sure that be-
lore we get through we may not have to ex-
ercise our power in that direction. l am not
sure that the wiser course today would not
be to take complete control of this particular
Territory.
Why of this Territory? Weat is there Pc.
cullar In its history and character that should
make us legislate with regard to it differently
from the way In which we legislate as to any
~ 70 hx. 1nf1 r
(Mr. Calne) has himself outlined the reasons
which have forced this legislation upon us
lie dwells upon the pathos of the situation.
He probably did not realize that he was stat
ing the binding facts which will control this
House in its action, and the country in its
approval of that action.
A long time ago body of religi0nists left the
United States, marched across the plains and
took possession Of certain property belong
ing to the people of the United States. out of
which we had determined, in pursuance of
our general policy, to make some day State
But 1t was not merely band of religionists;
1t was people that had polity. The dele
gate from Utah himself, either in a moment
of forgetfulness when he wrote his manu-
script, or in a moment of forgetfulness when
he was talking, spoke Of "the Mormon pol
ity." There is the keynote of the situation.
Those people went out there as the represen-
government. What did they do? With that
rare foresight which indicates craftsmanship,
and which we should compliment If the Of,
1ect had been just, the Mormon church took
possession, under the forms Of law, of every
acre OF arabic land. The land out there re-
quired to be irrigated and they took posses
sion OF every source of water supply.
They took possession of the forests; they
took possession Of everything that they
deemed valuable, not only for themselves
but for their co-religionists who should af-
terward join them. They intended to segre-
gate to themselves as an organized band
certain portion of the property of the Uni
ted States. But wise as they were, they had
not complete prophetic foresight. They
knew nothing of the value of the mineral
lands; and years afterward the swarming
miners, when they went there, found them
selves, except as to mineral privileges, de-
prived of all the rights which fairly belong
ed to them as citizens Of the United States.
That hierarchy has been kept up ever since
its organization, inside the United States and
controlling one of its Territories.
1t is useless to call such measure as that
now before the House an assault upon reli-
gion. IL Is an assault upon Danu OF men
organized for the purpose of controlling ex-
elusively the territory which belonged 10 the
people Of the United States; and, as the gen.
tleman from Utah well says, whenever in
justice is done it can never finally triumph;
there will always come a period of reck on
ing. And today we are roofing out an unjust
possession of the soil which belonged to the
people of the United States, and should have
Polygamy is only one of the incidents Of
the situation. 1t is one of the manifesto
tions of bad condition of society, and it
affords me an illustration to show why we
can not permit local control to be supreme
in that region You propose to punish
man for violating the laws of the United
States with regard to polygamy What is
your practical situation? You bring him
before grand jury. If that grand jury
were chosen as grand juries are selected
elsewhere, the result would be that the
grand jury room would be filled either with
men who are committing the same crime, or
with those who believe it would be a relig-
ious duty for them to commit it if they were
worth property enough to sustain themselves
in doing so. If you bring the offender be-
fore jury, you are met by twelve men, the
majority of whom must necessarily be men
who entirely sympathize with the crime.
Now if there is anybody here who believes
that an execution Of the laws of the United
States would be possible under such circum-
stances, he has faith in the uprightness of
mankind which 1 do not share.
That illustrates one of the difficulties
which are in the way of the enforcement of
the laws of the United States unless we
take some such control of the matter as is
proposed in this bill-uness we take hold of
| 1t by force of our governing power
| Well, perhaps, some one will say, why do
| you not let them carry out alone by them
selves the principles which actuate themp
| In addition to the reasons have given, 1t Is